DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/08/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-11 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 3/19/25, 6/23/25, and 1/21/26 are considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “coupled to radio” should read –coupled to the radio–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/780,284 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entirety of the substantive claim language of claim 1 of the instant application is contained within claim 1 of the reference application.
Additionally, claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the instant application is substantively identical to claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the reference application, respectively, and, the limitations of claims 8 and 10 of the instant application are substantively contained within claim 8 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “at least some” does not make plain, in clear, concise, and exact terms, what minimum value of slot pairs facilitating reflection cancellation satisfies the condition of “some”; the scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 6 is included for its dependency upon claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “at least some” does not make plain, in clear, concise, and exact terms, what minimum value of respective groups of slot pairs or respective groups of asymmetrical slot pairs facilitating reflection cancellation satisfies the condition of “some”; the scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 6 also recites the limitation "at least some respective groups of asymmetrical slot pairs" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is not made clear whether the “at least some respective groups of asymmetrical slot pairs” are intended to be additional respective groups of slot pairs to the aforementioned respective groups of slot pairs, within the respective groups of separate slot pairs but distinct from the “at least some of the respective groups of slot pairs” established in claim 5, or within the “at least some of the respective groups of slot pairs” established in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shijo et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0056776) and Tanaka et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2006/0097942).
Regarding claim 1, Shijo et al. teaches (Figs. 1-11) a device, comprising: a radio frequency signal source (1102); and a planar transmitter coupled to the radio frequency signal source (see Fig. 1; ¶53, and Fig. 11 demonstrate coupling of the radio frequency signal source to the planar transmitter), the planar transmitter comprising a leaky wave antenna structure configured for beam scanning (see Fig. 7, and Fig. 11, ¶54), wherein the leaky wave antenna structure comprises respective apertures formed by respective groups of slot pairs (104a, 104b; see Fig. 7 for example).
Shijo does not teach wherein the respective groups of slot pairs have respective different spacing periodicity patterns resulting in respective different beam scanning radiation pattern angles transmitted via the leaky wave antenna structure.
Tanaka et al. teaches (Figs. 1-2) a device, comprising: a planar transmitter (1), the planar transmitter comprising a leaky waveguide antenna structure configured for beam scanning (see Figs. 1, 2), wherein the leaky wave antenna structure comprises respective apertures formed by respective groups of slot pairs (see pairs of slots, each on alternate sides of antenna structure; see also ¶55), and wherein the respective groups of slot pairs have respective different spacing periodicity patterns (see Fig. 1; ¶34) resulting in different beam scanning radiation pattern angles transmitted via the leaky wave antenna structure (see Fig. 2, angles 100, 200; angle θ in Fig. 4, and ¶35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shijo by forming the respective groups of slot pairs to have respective different spacing periodicity patterns resulting in respective different beam scanning radiation pattern angles transmitted via the leaky wave antenna structure, employing the teachings of Tanaka.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the device to operably receive and transmit in a range of beam scanning radiation pattern angles (see Tanaka, Fig. 4, ¶61).
Regarding claim 2, Shijo teaches the device of claim 1.
Shijo does not teach wherein the respective different spacing periodicity patterns are configured to result in the different beam scanning radiation pattern angles that mitigate an effect of null regions between the different beam scanning radiation pattern angles.
Tanaka teaches a device, comprising: a planar transmitter (1), the planar transmitter comprising a leaky waveguide antenna structure configured for beam scanning (see Figs. 1, 2), wherein the leaky wave antenna structure comprises respective apertures formed by respective groups of slot pairs (see pairs of slots, each on alternate sides of antenna structure; see also ¶55), and wherein the respective groups of slot pairs have respective different spacing periodicity patterns (see Fig. 1; ¶34) resulting in different beam scanning radiation pattern angles transmitted via the leaky wave antenna structure (see Fig. 2, angles 100, 200; angle θ in Fig. 4, and ¶35), wherein the respective different spacing periodicity patterns are configured to result in the different beam scanning radiation pattern angles that mitigate an effect of null regions between the different beam scanning radiation patterns (see ¶35, “it is possible to transmit electromagnetic waves incident from arbitrary directions respectively back into the same directions as the directions of incidence,” thus teaching that any null regions are accounted for and mitigated by arbitrarily angled beam scanning radiation patterns).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shijo such that the respective different spacing periodicity patterns are configured to result in the different beam scanning radiation pattern angles that mitigate an effect of null regions between the different beam scanning radiation pattern angles, employing the teachings of Tanaka.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the device to operably receive and transmit in a range of beam scanning radiation pattern angles (see Tanaka, Fig. 4, ¶61).
Regarding claim 3, Shijo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the planar transmitter is incorporated with a receiver into a transceiver (transmitter is incorporated with RF module unit 1102, a transceiver; see ¶56).
Regarding claim 4, Shijo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the leaky wave antenna structure comprises a substrate integrated waveguide structure (see Fig. 1, planar transmitter is a waveguide structure integrated into substrate 101; see ¶18).
Regarding claim 5, Shijo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein at least some of the respective groups of slot pairs facilitate reflection cancellation (see ¶3).
Regarding claim 6, Shijo teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the at least some of the respective groups of slot pairs facilitate the reflection cancellation via at least some respective groups of asymmetrical slot pairs (see Fig. 2, 104a and 104b are asymmetrical across line direction; see also asymmetrical distribution of analogous elements 404, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Shijo teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the respective groups of slot pairs facilitate reflection cancellation to avoid stop band effects and facilitate broadside radiation (see ¶3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the device is incorporated into a computing device for transmission of radio frequency signals to a metasurface for redirection to a receiver via at least one of the different beam scanning radiation pattern angles”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is included for its dependency upon claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the device is incorporated into a computer peripheral device for transmission of radio frequency signals to a metasurface via at least one of the different beam scanning radiation pattern angles”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is included for its dependency upon claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alexanian et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0028528), Wada et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0372886), and Singh et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2026/0025172) each teach planar leaky wave structures with paired and variably distributed slot elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845